A Stanford Study Exposes Massive Racial Bias in AI Hiring Tools Used by 90 Percent of Businesses
https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/stanford-study-exposes-massive-racial-bias-in-ai-hiring-tools-used-by-90-percent-of-businesses/91352321
96 points · 17 comments · view on lemmy.world
17 Comments
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 72d
No wayyy......
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 72d
omg such surprise.,...
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 72d
not really surprised, as certain jobs industry will hire certain demographics over others like, any receptionist jobs , they will screen out any male names. Also besides that so many people have reported on other forums that AI effectively locked them out of the field altogether after graduation, hence why you see reviews of certain universities how terrible the education/job finding was.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 3 pts · 72d
So their source that 73% of global businesses use AI, at some point in the hiring process, is a site called CPA Practice Advisor who source their claim from MyPerfectResume™ which honestly it sounds kind of bogus to me.
Can that many people really be this stupid?
lukstru@piefed.social · 8 pts · 72d
Yes, and even more can be lazy with annoying processes where they dont see the direct consequences oft their actions when they trust the system
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 72d
If it's the cheapest modus operandi the bean counters can find to accomplish the task, you bet they can.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -5 pts · 72d
Theres nothing cheap about hundreds of discrimination lawsuits, lmao.
AI racial bias is not a new thing.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 72d
They're outsourcing the logic to the AI provider, so they can pass the buck and proclaim innocence - in some cases it's even likely true.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 72d
In California, one such lawsuit was allowed to continhe by a judge. Proclaming innocence doesn't work when we have all known about AI racial bias and hallucinations for many years, we can reasonably show that they in all likelihood did know the same way a musician can prove the thief heard their song in a copyright case.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 72d
Glad to see that, but a single example does not a reliable precedent make — particularly under the current grip of the judicial system by conservatives.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 72d
AI being new means you won't have precedent going back 20 years, mate. As I mentioned there is already precedent for proving the defendant was aware of the problematic behavior or risks due to such information being publicly available and commonly discussed.
Even if what you say is true and a bunch of conservative trump appointee hacks are fucking the judicial process up: you can't win them all and there are going to be metric assloads of these cases.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 72d
vs
Which is it?
What I said is demonstrably true, and - unless Thomas & Alito are dumb enough to stick things out past the current administration's ability to replace them - we are going to be suffering the effects of the stacked Supreme Court having the final word for quite some time.
middlemanSI@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 72d
Just imagine stupidity on a gauss curve. The average Joe is stupid as f. And then realize HALF of people are dumber than Joe.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 72d
Yeah but even if half of Nepo Babies are mentally impaired they were all forced to go to expensive business schools.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 72d
Many of them paid for those degrees, like Trump. He didn't earn a degree, he bought one.